so...Hillary Clinton...or... Billary Clinton???

[phillyfan26]

i don't use the word hate.

i just hate white people.

 

[Dalton]

btw,
I survived a house fire

and type with one hand

No shit?

I apologize. I was raised by wolves which made me an asshole.

 

[Dalton]

i just hate white people.

Who the hell don't.

 

[financeguy]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: so...Hillary Clinton...or... Billary Clinton???

i don't use the word hate.

i dislike a woman who presents herself as some kind of feminist icon when EVERYTHING she has accomplished is directly due to her husband's power.

I think you're forgetting something.

Hillary and Bills were up at the barricades defending civil rights back in the 1960's, when people like Barack were off doing whatever it is that, y'know, people like Barack do.

People like Obama should be grateful, damnit.

 

[phillyfan26]

I think a more fair comparison would be when Barack was the age that Hillary and Bill were in the 1960s.

 

[financeguy]

no.

i just hate white people.

Typically ungrateful. Why can't you accept that it's some people's right to govern?

 

[Irvine511]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: so...Hillary Clinton...or... Billary Clinton???

What came first, the chicken or the egg?

Not saying you are wrong. But I'm not entirely sure who the brains of the operation here was all along either.

it is a partnership. i do agree.

i still think he's the brains. she'd be almost over and done with had she not, 1) cried, and 2) unleashed Bill and his rock star power to unload in a petty and nasty way on Obama.

without him, she's nothing.

i think she would be a fine president, yet she could not ever be a fine president. these past few weeks have revealed to me a viciousness in the two of them that i hadn't seen before, and people are just waiting, rubbing their hands, willing to dig in their heels and kick and scream like a 15 year old who wants to piss of his overprotective mother.

and if you think that Bush is someone who cannot admit he's ever made a mistake, wait till we have the Clintons back in the white house.

 

[Irvine511]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: so...Hillary Clinton...or... Billary Clinton???

Hillary and Bills were up at the barricades defending civil rights back in the 1960's, when people like Barack were off doing whatever it is that, y'know, people like Barack do.

being in elementary school?

 

[anitram]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: so...Hillary Clinton...or... Billary Clinton???

without him, she's nothing.

What would he have been

without her?

 

[Irvine511]

Typically ungrateful. Why can't you accept that it's some people's right to govern?

surname Bush or Clinton.

it works in Argentina, no?

 

[phillyfan26]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: so...Hillary Clinton...or... Billary Clinton???

being in elementary school?

You mean eight year olds weren't politically active in 1969?

 

[MrBrau1]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: so...Hillary Clinton...or... Billary Clinton???

Hillary and Bills were up at the barricades defending civil rights back in the 1960's, when people like Barack were off doing whatever it is that, y'know, people like Barack do.

he was put cheerios up his nose and squishing bugs. naps. poop. all that jazz.

 

[Irvine511]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: so...Hillary Clinton...or... Billary Clinton?

What would he have been

without her?

governor of Arkansas.

and on his 4th wife.

 

[deep]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: so...Hillary Clinton...or... Billary Clinton???

I think you're forgetting something.

Hillary and Bills were up at the barricades defending civil rights back in the 1960's, when people like Barack were off doing whatever it is that, y'know, people like Barack do.

People like Obama should be grateful, damnit.

Actually it was more the 70s

and one might have more correct information to post on Hillary if they did a little checking

It seems like some of the remarks I am reading are Limbaugh talking points

 

[financeguy]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: so...Hillary Clinton...or... Billary Clinton???

being in elementary school?

Well, yes, but as the Hillary campaign have not-so-subtly implied, probably doing drugs too.

 

[Irvine511]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: so...Hillary Clinton...or... Billary Clinton???

It seems like some of the remarks I am reading are Limbaugh talking points

and the comments on Obama, are very Mark Penn.

 

[deep]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: so...Hillary Clinton...or... Billary Clin

and on his 4th wife.

good chance he has already been "on" quite a few more than four wifes already

 

[anitram]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: so...Hillary Clinton...or... Billary Clin

governor of Arkansas.

and on his 4th wife.

It is simplistic to say she is nothing without him.

They are two people who walked into something fortuitous. I think he is more capable; I think she is more driven. He would have been Governor of Arkansas, she'd be rolling at some huge corporate firm. Both successful, but not as much as this.

I don't like the way they are behaving. But I think there is also a lot of perhaps unintentional sexism I see in some of what is being said about her. Particularly in relation to her husband.

That sends people like my mother, in their mid 50s to vote for her. Because they don't appreciate the implications. And they remember the 60s and 70s.

I have to admit, sometimes I am revolted by the Clintons. But, I think inadvertently, the revolt of certain segments is helping them, because when you parse it down, some of it leaves a distaste in one's mouth just the same.

 

[Irvine511]

i'm fine with charges of sexism. in fact, i think sexism has much to do with why, without him, she is nothing.

but that's the sexism of the world, that's not my personal sexism.

i'm sorry she's had to face that, and i know women are sensitive to that. but the portrayal of herself as a feminist icon, especially when she has to deploy her husband to do her dirty work for her, is far more offensive than anything i've written.

 

[U2DMfan]

1. calling Obama "kid"
2. claiming that Obama was injecting "race" into the campaign when it was the Clintons who did first
3. the wild distortion of Obama's comments on Reagan
4. the wild distortion of Obama's non-comments on Clinton
5. the wild distortion of what 100 "present" votes in the IL senate means out of over 4,000 cast
6. the use of a former president as a political hit man and his going far above and beyond the role of a political spouse

do you want more?

Well, let's talk about these issues. I want to know how you and others ended up where you ended up. I'll admit, I'm puzzled.

I think if there were ever an issue of hyper-sensitive "sacred cow" phenomenon, it would be with #1. Are you serious, Irvine? C'mon, that's pretty flimsy right there. Grasping on this one...

race into the campaign, where is the actual starting point of which you speak? Is it the Clintons talking about civil rights legislation actually having to be ushered in by a lawmaker and not a civil rights advocate? Is that not factual? Perhaps you mean a different starting point.

The Reagan comments were distorted but I don't take issue with Bill Clinton taking on his inclusion in them. It doesn't bother me that he'd defend himself. Especially if the implication is that Hillary wouldn't be able to unite the country because Bill didn't. It's good to see some balls from the Dems. What common thread do McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry all have ? No balls. Almost gutless. I think it's going to take more toughness to battle Republicans than Obama is displaying. It's almost as if he and his supporters are begging for kid gloves.

The "present" votes stem from the argument about Iraq, IMO. Obama is out proclaiming himself an authority based on a speech he made in 2002. Fine, I give him credit for being right at the time. They were trying to show that more than a few times he decided to pass on a hard stance on a few important issues. So his speech is fair display but his votes are not? Are we supposed to just give him a pass. John Edwards took issue with this as well.
He's voted lock step with Hillary on the war since arriving in the Senate, so we're supposed to ignore that as well, and just give him his bye and laud his 5 year old speech. Just saying it's fair game. It's not a big deal to me, the issue, but it is fair game.

What difference does it make that he's the spouse? Did you outwardly decry the Clinton involvement in the Kerry campaign? What is the role of a "poltical spouse"? I think you've raised some interesting issues and things to talk more about but it's something like this that makes me shake my head.

You want him to just go away and let Obama win?
What's the difference between David Axelrod and Bill Clinton if they are both doing essentially the same thing? Is it unfair that Obama gets to utilize Oprah and Kerry etc. but if HIllary uses her husband, for goodness sake, it's over the line? Let's just admit something here, it's his status that bothers you. It's the weight of the attacks, not the attack, not the method.

I hope we can talk further about these issues because I'm just not seeing the big deal yet.

 

[U2DMfan]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: so...Hillary Clinton...or... Billary Clinton???

and if you think that Bush is someone who cannot admit he's ever made a mistake, wait till we have the Clintons back in the white house.

Now this is something I can definitely agree with.

 

[U2DMfan]

i'm sorry she's had to face that, and i know women are sensitive to that. but the portrayal of herself as a feminist icon, especially when she has to deploy her husband to do her dirty work for her, is far more offensive than anything i've written.

She's up on the stage talking about issues in every debate.
She's had to answer to Obama's retorts. Are these Slick Willie digs working because Obama is just not up to the task?

She's so incapable of doing anything on her own, yet she's not getting pounded by the great orator Obama in direct debate matchups with what clearly are below the belt attacks?

Something doesn't add up about that. He's not the best debater but she'd be an empty pantsuit with that fancy last name, right?

Fuck sakes, when did I become a Hillary apologist?
Just bored, I guess.

 

[Irvine511]

Fuck sakes, when did I become a Hillary apologist?
Just bored, I guess.

yes, you did.

"kid" is a racial slight. my boyfriend's grandparents called black men "boy" their whole life.

i never said she was an empty pantsuit. i think she has genuine substance. but i also think that everything she's accomplished is tied to him.

and her use of him in this campaign is my major problem. no one has ever run for president with their spouse as a former president, yet no former president has ever campaigned as viciously as Bill is doing right now.

he made ample distinction of what a "present" vote does and does not mean in the IL senate.

and i'm not going to go through this one by one, but i will say that before Christmas, i would have happily voted for her as a respectable second choice should she be the nominee.

now, i'll have to shower afterwards.

 

[melon]

Re: Re: Re: so...Hillary Clinton...or... Billary Clinton???

Has it ever occured to you that many people have done their research on Obama and Paul and have rationally come to the conclusion that Obama or Paul is the candidate for them (just as you (hopefully) have done your research and concluded something different?)

For one, I have repeatedly stated that I'm fine with whomever one wants to vote for. However, I take issue with the "cult-like" adoration that certain people here and elsewhere have for their candidate (for the record, I have not noticed such cultish behavior with you, so I have no room to criticize you, even if we disagree on Paul).

Posing what is clearly a loaded question worthy of a push poll--I mean, really, "Two Headed Beast" and "Billary"?--is precisely the kind of nonsense I wish to call out. Again, it is not support for Obama or Paul that I take issue with; it is just certain nonsense spewing from both camps.

Melon, with all due respect to you, maybe instead of posting threads like 'Why should I care about Iraq?' and 'Why should I care about Obama?', YOU should do YOUR own research and tell us what candidate YOU prefer (and then we can all proceed with ridiculing your choice, just as you've ridiculed the choices of others.)

What if I said that I can't stand any of them? Is there an alternative to the "pandering ineffectual heterosexual Christian" bloc that is quite clearly represented in both parties? I will, quite grudgingly, vote for whomever the Democratic candidate is in November, if only because I perceive all the Republican candidates to be worse.

Neither party represents my interests at all.

 

[Irvine511]

She's so incapable of doing anything on her own, yet she's not getting pounded by the great orator Obama in direct debate matchups with what clearly are below the belt attacks?

*his* attacks are below the belt?

(blinks eyes)

*his* attacks?

 

[U2democrat]

As usual, I'm with you 100% Irvine. It saddens me that it has gotten to the point where the Clintons really disgust me. I didn't want it to come to that, but it has because of their nasty double teaming.

What scares me is that if she were to squeak out the nomination, by the time it gets to the general election people are going to be so sick of the Clintons...including myself...and that will lead to another republican president. I admit, I am aware that I am a very partisan person, and when she/they turn off someone as dedicated to the Democratic party as myself, I know I am not alone in this, no good can come of a Clinton nomination.

 

[Harry Vest]

Re: Re: Re: Re: so...Hillary Clinton...or... Billary Clinton???

For one, I have repeatedly stated that I'm fine with whomever one wants to vote for. However, I take issue with the "cult-like" adoration that certain people here and elsewhere have for their candidate (for the record, I have not noticed such cultish behavior with you, so I have no room to criticize you, even if we disagree on Paul).

Posing what is clearly a loaded question worthy of a push poll--I mean, really, "Two Headed Beast" and "Billary"?--is precisely the kind of nonsense I wish to call out. Again, it is not support for Obama or Paul that I take issue with; it is just certain nonsense spewing from both camps.



What if I said that I can't stand any of them? Is there an alternative to the "pandering ineffectual heterosexual Christian" bloc that is quite clearly represented in both parties? I will, quite grudgingly, vote for whomever the Democratic candidate is in November, if only because I perceive all the Republican candidates to be worse.

Neither party represents my interests at all.

Then find one that does or don't vote at all...or better yet start one!!!

 

[BVS]

Re: Re: Re: Re: so...Hillary Clinton...or... Billary Clinton???

Sorry pal, the country's going to be very divided regardless of who wins.

You are too young to be so cynical...

It's sad to see such young people who are black and white, especially when they never went through the compassionate stage.

 

[Harry Vest]

By the way I wish I was cheeky enough to have come up with "Billary" and " The Two Headed Beast" but unfortunately I am not. These are terms which by now are all over the press...and it's nobody's fault but The Clinton's. I used to really like Bill despite his obvious flaws and mistakes - In the last three weeks I have grown to actually despise him - it's almost like, dare I say, I have had blindfolds lifted from my eyes. I now see why so many people dislike this couple. And no I don't think Obama is any kind of "savior" - I'm just so sick and tired of the American dynasties that are BUSH/CLINTON/BUSH/CLINTON - What the hell is wrong with America. Why on earth can't they choose someone else...my God...really!!!

 

[melon]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: so...Hillary Clinton...or... Billary Clinton???

Then find one that does or don't vote at all...or better yet start one!!

Unfortunately, American politics are structured to maintain the two-party duopoly--a stance that is supported by political scientists. The main problem is that, to change the structures that have created this duopoly, you'd have to have these two parties vote in favor of such changes--and why would they want to do that?

We've seen it rear its ugly head with the primaries this season. Both the Democratic and Republican parties, ideally, want their candidate "coronated" by a small handful of lowly-populated states before "Super Tuesday." The 2004 John Kerry sweep of the nation was precisely what each party would like.

What I would like to see is a "runoff election"-type system, where the top two candidates--regardless of party--run again in a final election. In Louisiana, where such a system already exists, that typically means the usual Democrat and Republican. It can, however, mean two Democrats, two Republicans, or, theoretically, anyone from a third party. Such a system, I believe, would help negate our tendency to vote on "strategy," rather than the candidate we actually agree with. The fact is that the system we currently have basically codifies that the Democratic and Republican parties are "the only" two parties, and we have seen the end result of that.

In business, if we only had two companies in a given industry, we would probably complain about poor service, pricing, and products; and many would call for the government to intervene to break it up and restore market competition. So why do we not hold our political structures up to the same standards?